Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-10-12, 07:26 AM   #1
Thulsadoom
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Thulsadoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gouverneur NY
Bikes: 2003 BIANCHI VIGORELLI, 2002 TREK 520, Schwinn Mesa WINTER BIKE
Posts: 1,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gearing question: sprocket/chainring/cog size?

I don't understand why bicycles have big front chainrings and smaller cogs in the rear.(typically)

It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct? If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog. When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?

Even with cassettes and derailleur bikes it seems like the front chainrings are generally larger than most or all of the cassette cogs.

Motorcycles are opposite and typically have a smaller front drive sprocket and a larger rear wheel pulley, so I can't figure that out either.

I'm sure there's a simple explaination for this, can someone point me in the right direction?

Last edited by Thulsadoom; 01-10-12 at 07:38 AM.
Thulsadoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 07:45 AM   #2
tsl
Plays in traffic
 
tsl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Bikes: 1996 Litespeed Classic, 2006 Trek Portland, 2013 Ribble Winter/Audax
Posts: 6,961
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator

Bicycles have a long-stroke, low-RPM, high-torque, narrow-band, low-horsepower motor.

Motorcycles have a short-stroke, high-RPM, high-torque, wide-band, high-horsepower motor.

This gives the transmissions differing requirements.
tsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 11:24 AM   #3
CraigB
Starting over
 
CraigB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Bikes: 1990 Trek 1500; 2006 Gary Fisher Marlin; 2011 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 105; 2012 Catrike Trail
Posts: 4,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Could be too, that early derailleurs worked better when they had compact bodies and cages, handling changes between relatively small cogs that were only incrementally different in size from their neighbors.

Just a guess.
CraigB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 12:03 PM   #4
Retro Grouch 
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Posts: 26,908
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
I'm sure there's a simple explaination for this, can someone point me in the right direction?
It's carryover from the days when bicycles had big front wheels and tiny rear wheels.
Retro Grouch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 12:26 PM   #5
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, homebuilt recumbent
Posts: 9,082
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
If you're asking why front chainrings are 39T instead of 44T, the answer is "marketing." If you're asking why they aren't 13T, then you need more help than you're gonna get here.
BlazingPedals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 01:00 PM   #6
AndreyT
Senior Member
 
AndreyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CA
Bikes:
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
I don't understand why bicycles have big front chainrings and smaller cogs in the rear.(typically)
Chainrings and cogs serve the same purpose the car gearbox serves: the allow you to redistribute the balance between torque and speed. When you need more torque, you can get it at the expense of less speed. When you need more speed you can get it at the expense of less torque. Typically, the "averagely optimal" everyday balance between torque and speed in a bicycle calls for a bigger chainring and smaller cog (for the traditional crank length and wheel diameter).

If you build some sort of unorthodox bike, like a bike with unusually large wheels (like 2x the diameter of normal wheels), then the balance will shift sufficiently to call for a larger cog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct?
Er.. No. 39/20=1.95, 42/23=1.82. These ratios are sufficiently different.

Although I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with these examples. In both of your examples the chainring is still almost 2 times larger than the cog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog.
Because for the given crank length and wheel diameter this chainring and this cog provide the "optimal" balance between torque and speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
That would result in a bike that is biased heavily towards torque. It will be able to slowly climb steep hills with relative ease, yet it will provide no speed. I.e. in order to make that bike ride at 10mph you'd have to frantically crank your pedals at crazy and unrealistic cadence. That would be extremely inefficient and impractical. More precisely, it would have practical value when you need to climb a steep hill. But in everyday riding on a horizontal road surface you'd end up spinning the pedals like a bat out of hell and yet only get to 5 mph or so. People generally don't want to ride at 5 mph on horizontal surfaces. People want to be able to achieve 20 mph, 30 mph and more. For that you need gearing that is more biased towards speed. And that requires large chainring and small cog.

Again, if you build some unusual bike with wheels that are 2 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, then the optimal ratio between chainring and cog diameter might get them very close to each other. If you build a bike with wheels that are 3 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, you might end up needing a cog that is larger than the chainring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
Motorcycles are opposite and typically have a smaller front drive sprocket and a larger rear wheel pulley, so I can't figure that out either.
Motorcycle engine works at very high RPMs (extremely high RPMs, actually) while producing relatively small torque, which means that motorcycle's transmission system has to be tailored towards converting speed into torque. For this reason for motorcycles the optimal torque-speed balance calls for smaller chainring and larger cog.

A bicycle uses an "engine" of a completely different nature. A human being as an engine works more efficiently at relatively low RPMs, while producing relatively high torque. This means that bike's transmission system has to be tailored towards converting torque into speed. For this reason for bicycle the optimal torque-speed balance calls for larger chainring and smaller cog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
I'm sure there's a simple explaination for this, can someone point me in the right direction?
Well, are you familiar with the concepts of "gearbox", "gearing"? That's the primary thing about the chain drive. The purpose of the bicycle chain drive is not even remotely limited to simply transferring the torque from the crankset to the rear wheel. The purpose of the bicycle chain drive is to change the balance between the torque and speed to provide the most efficient/comfortable ride (torque vs. speed balance) for the given riding conditions.

Last edited by AndreyT; 01-10-12 at 03:19 PM.
AndreyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 02:25 PM   #7
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 22,110
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1114 Post(s)
Or more simply its like moving the fulcrum under a lever..
Think of a teeter-totter is a 1:1 gear.

Catapult flings stuff far because the leverage advantage is there.
fietsbob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 03:01 PM   #8
Monster Pete
Senior Member
 
Monster Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct?
It's not correct. You divide the chainring by the sprocket to get a gear ratio. For example, a 38t chainring coupled to a 19t sprocket gives you a 2:1 ratio, the same as 42/21. Higher ratios give you more speed, but less torque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog. When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
This combination gives you a fairly high gear ratio, which is what you want if you only have one gear. This allows you to pedal at speed without having to pedal like crazy. The same sized gears would give you a 1:1 ratio, which might be good for rock-crawling but little else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsadoom View Post
Motorcycles are opposite and typically have a smaller front drive sprocket and a larger rear wheel pulley, so I can't figure that out either.
Motorcycle engines are capable of high revs but low torque, the exact opposite of a human cranking pedals. The low gear ratios of a motorcycle convert a high speed, low torque output to a low speed, high torque one.
Monster Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 04:40 PM   #9
Thulsadoom
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Thulsadoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gouverneur NY
Bikes: 2003 BIANCHI VIGORELLI, 2002 TREK 520, Schwinn Mesa WINTER BIKE
Posts: 1,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
After reading through this stuff, I realize now that it was kind of a dumb post. Maybe I shouldn't post in the morning when I'm on coffee....

If you wanted to equal out the cogs, say a 30 in the front and a 30 in the back, it would be a tiny gear. Unless, like AndreyT said, you had a huge rear wheel, or you could pedal at 200 rpms with no problem. A 20 in the front and 20 in the back would be tiny, a 50 and a 50 also. Somehow I confused myself and didn't realize that bicycles are geared (given wheels that are 27 inches or so in diameter) for humans who pedal at around 80 rpms comfortably and have a relatively similar power band. That's the way I see it now, and it makes sense...to me at least.

Thanks for the replies.
Thulsadoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-12, 04:46 PM   #10
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 22,110
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1114 Post(s)
A 1:1 chain drive is how those 6 foot tall Unicycles work.

and artistic cycling bikes to do wheelies and handstands on the bike
at the same time.
fietsbob is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 AM.